ORDER : P.K Lohra, J. Accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) to assail impugned order dated 13th of September, 2017, passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Pratapgarh (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), whereby learned trial Court has rejected his second bail application arising out of FIR No. 98/2017, registered at Police Station Parsola, District Pratpgarh. In the FIR aforesaid, appellant is charged for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 16 & 17 of the POCSO Act. 2. At the behest of appellant, first attempt for seeking bail was made before learned trial Court but the same did not fructify to his advantage. Later on, this Court was approached by way of laying bail application No. 7601/2017 but after arguing for some time, learned counsel sought permission to withdraw the same with liberty to file fresh after submission of charge-sheet. Subsequent to the rejection of first bail application, charge-sheet was filed in the matter, and therefore, appellant sought intervention of the learned trial Court for grant of bail but his that effort too proved abortive. 3. Arguing this appeal, it is submitted by learned counsel that appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C makes it abundantly clear that the allegation of rape is against co-accused Khaniya and the only allegation against appellant is that he accompanied the prosecutrix to the place of occurrence. It is further argued by learned counsel that the appellant is closely related to prosecutrix and no overt act is attributed to him much less commission of any sexual offence with the prosecutrix. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the learned trial Court has eschewed the material change in circumstances while considering the second bail application of appellant, and therefore, the said order warrants interference. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the appeal of appellant. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that in the backdrop of serious criminal delinquencies of appellant, learned trial Court in its discretion has declined him bail, and therefore, the said order does not warrant any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 5. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the appeal of appellant. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that in the backdrop of serious criminal delinquencies of appellant, learned trial Court in its discretion has declined him bail, and therefore, the said order does not warrant any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the impugned order in conjunction with other materials available on record. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the material change in circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, I feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Consequently, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is set aside and it is ordered that accused-appellant, Prabhu Lal S/o Shri. Dev Ji, arrested in connection with F.I.R No. 98/2017, Police Station Parsola, District Pratapgarh, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.